WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/236 
17 April 2009 
 (09-1833) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
THIRD REVIEW OF THE WTO SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Proposal by India
 
  
 The following communication, received on 27 Marc h 2009, is being circulated at the request 
of the Delegation of India
. 
 
_______________ 
  
1. The Third Review of the SPS Agreement is due this year.  India would like to raise the 
following issues for considerati on by the Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures (SPS 
Committee), and seek clarification/guidelines from the SPS Committee. 
2. Article 3.1
 of the SPS Agreement requires that  Members base their SPS measures on 
international standards, guidelines or recommendati ons, where they exist.  The Secretariat may 
undertake the work of preparing a Member-specifi c compilation listing the various measures notified 
by each country and assess how many of them  are based on international standards. 
3. However, Members are not obligated to notify measures the content of which are 
substantially the same as that of an international st andard.  The notification fo rmat has always had an 
entry (item 8) on international st andards (also asking for deviations ), but the information provided by 
Members may not always be clear as to whether a notified measure was "based on" or "conformed to" 
an international standard or to what extent it deviated from it. 
4. With the adoption of the revised transparen cy guidelines (G/SPS/7/Rev.3) by the SPS 
Committee, Members are specifically encouraged to notify all regulati ons that are based on, conform 
to, or are substantially the same as an internationa l standard (para. 8).  Also, item 8 of the revised 
notification format seeks more specific informa tion from Members on the relationship between the 
notified measure and relevant  international standards. 
5. The new notification formats have been in ope ration since 1 December 2008.  Therefore, the 
analysis of notifications since then might throw some light on the issue.  For this purpose the SPS 
Committee may ask the Secretariat to prepare a conso lidated compilation of all notifications relating 
to SPS measures from that date and seek to an alyze the results over a one-year period from 
1 December 2008 to 30 November 2009. 
6. According to Article 3.5  of the SPS Agreement, the SPS Committee shall develop a 
procedure to monitor the process of international ha rmonization and coordinate efforts in this regard 
with the relevant international organizati ons.  Similarly, according to Article 12.4  of the SPS 
Agreement, the SPS Committee shall develop a pro cedure to monitor the process of international 
harmonization and the use of international standa rds, guidelines or recommendations.  For this 
purpose, the Committee has come up with procedures detailed in documents G/SPS/11/Rev.1 G/SPS/W/236 
Page 2  
 
  (15 November 2004) and G/SPS/40 (5 July 2006).  Th ere is a need to review the progress achieved 
through the use of the monitoring procedure recommended by the SPS Committee. 
7. There have been only a few interesting issu es under this agenda item (including a good 
example regarding Sri Lanka and cinnamon), but overa ll the procedure has not been used very much.  
There may be a need to review the procedure a nd include timelines for completion of the process.  
The timelines would be indicative and deviations th erefrom may need to be explained to the Member 
making a request for seeking harmonization. 
8. According to Article 4.2 
of the SPS Agreement, Members shall, upon request, enter into 
consultations with the aim of achieving bilatera l and multilateral agreemen ts on recognition of the 
equivalence of specified SPS measures.  In this  regard, the SPS Committee is sued guidelines detailed 
in G/SPS/19/Rev.2 (23 July 2004).  We may now seek the preparation by the SPS Committee of a 
country-specific status report, listing the cases where Members have entered into bilateral 
consultations and where a successful equivalence agre ement has been negotiated as a result thereof.  
Members, especially developing country Member s and least developed country Members, may be 
encouraged to share their experiences in and difficulties with implementing Article 4.2. 
9. In fact, the decision on equivalence also encourages Members to submit notifications to the 
Committee regarding any equivalence arrangements r eached.  The specific format developed for this 
purpose is contained in Annex E of G/SPS/7/Rev.3.   However, only two notifications regarding 
equivalence have been submitted so far.  There is  need for a specific and strong call for Members to 
submit more notifications and also share more information in the Committee.  In fact, even if a Member does not enter into any equivalence arrangeme nt, it could be required to make a statement to 
this effect.  A faithful listing of all the negotiate d equivalence agreements will help other Members 
also to negotiate similar agreements. 
10. According to Article 5.5
 of the SPS Agreement, the SPS Committee shall develop guidelines 
that will ensure that Members avoid arbitrary or unjus tifiable distinctions in the level they consider to 
be appropriate in different situa tions, if such distinctions result in discrimination or a disguised 
restriction on international trade.  There is a need to  review the progress achieved in this issue through 
the use of the Committee's guidelines detailed in document G/SPS/15 (18 July 2000).  WTO may seek to analyze some SPS measures of key trading Member s that have a major effect on exports from other 
countries and try to objectively assess to what extent they are "arbitrary or unjustifiable". 
11. In Article 5.6
 of the SPS Agreement, footnote 3, th ere is a need to clarify the words 
"reasonably available" regarding possible alternative measures. 
12. In terms of Article 10  of the SPS Agreement, and document G/SPS/33 on the procedure to 
enhance transparency of special and differential tr eatment, the implementation of such a procedure 
would need to be evaluated.  This issue shoul d be built into the discussions of the SPS Committee, 
and notifications made by Members pursuant to G/SPS/33 should be examined. 
13. Apparently there is on-going work in the Committee on this issue under the S&D agenda 
item.  But no notification has been made so far unde r G/SPS/33.  Hence, there is a need to expedite 
the work under the S&D agenda. 
14. In terms of Article 12.2  of the SPS Agreement, there is a need to assess the work undertaken 
by the SPS Committee to encourage the use of intern ational standards, guidelines or recommendations 
by all Members, and to sponsor technical consu ltation and study with the objective of increasing 
coordination between international and national syst ems and approaches for approving the use of food 
additives or for establishing tolerances for contam inants in foods, beverages or feedstuffs.  G/SPS/W/236 
 Page 3 
 
 
  15. As per Article 13  of the SPS Agreement, Members shall take such reasonable measures as 
may be available to them to ensure that non-govern mental entities within their territories comply with 
the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement.  Acco rdingly, there is an urgent need for the SPS 
Committee to come up with specific guidelines on the measures to be taken by Members in cases 
where private standards are being adopted by vari ous entities within their territories.  Members may 
also consider introducing a Code of Good Practice (s imilar to Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement) for all 
voluntary standard-setting authorities located within their territories. 
16. The following paragraphs in Annex C  of the SPS Agreement are ambiguous and need to be 
clarified: 
(a) In paragraph 1(e), the criteria for the words "reasonable and necessary" need 
to be spelt out; 
(b) In paragraphs 1(c) and 1(h), the crite ria for the words "what is necessary" 
need to be clarified; 
(c) In paragraph 3, the words "reasonable inspection" need to be clarified; 
(d) The SPS Committee should identify typical steps of control, inspection and 
approval procedures in relation to SPS measures as well as the application of 
recommendations and good practice therein to provide guidance for implementation;  and 
(e) The SPS Committee may draw the attention of the OIE, IPPC and Codex to 
the discussion and consult with them re garding the development of relevant 
international standards pertaining to  control, inspection and approval 
procedures such as sampling, on-site inspection, determination of soil 
freedom, etc. 
17. India would like to request the SPS Committee to  initiate discussions on the above issues and 
come up with necessary clarification/guidelines.  Me mbers may be encouraged to share their views 
and suggest specific proposals.  India, on its part, would at an appropriate stage make specific 
suggestions. 
__________